In late 2015 I heard that Disney had decided to make a live-action
version of their 1991 animated classic, BEAUTY AND THE BEAST. BEAUTY AND THE
BEAST is not my favorite animated Disney movie, but it is a classic. That
particular film was the first movie to have three songs nominated for the
Academy Award for Best Original Song, was the first animated movie to be
nominated for the Academy Award for Best Picture, established that the Disney
Renaissance was real and not a one-time fluke, and became the first animated
Disney film to be transformed into a successful Broadway musical. Disney’s original BEAUTY AND THE BEAST is
filled with memorable characters and songs and rightfully deserves to be called
a modern Disney classic.
When I first heard of the live-action remake, I thought it
was a great idea. There is so much in the animated film that could be fleshed
out and enlivened. However, as the
release of the film approached and more and more marketing materials for the
movie (photographed still, clips from the movie, and eventually the full
soundtrack) were released, my hopes for the movie severely diminished. The
computer animation looked askew to me, the vocals in the music weren’t as
impressive as they should be, and much of what I read about the additions and
changes in the plot seemed completely unnecessary to me. However, I attempted
to put aside my reservations and watch the movie with no expectations. After
having seen the movie, I can say the 2017 BEAUTY AND THE BEAST is a good movie
and better than I expected, but it’s not a great film and somewhat undeserving
of the hype and the accolades being bestowed upon it.
The movie follows the plot of Disney’s original animated
film fairly closely. Belle (Emma Watson) is a free spirited woman living in a
small village. Her father, Maurice (Kevin Kline) is an artist and music box
maker. Maurice and Belle are not natives of the village they live in and are
viewed as a bit odd, particularly Belle. The village’s local hero, Gaston (Luke
Evans) is a former soldier and avid hunter who is obsessed with marrying Belle,
but she will not have him. While on the way to market to sell some music boxes,
Maurice is attacked by wolves and takes shelter in a mysterious castle in the
woods that is covered in snow (in June!). He soon discovers the castle is
enchanted and ruled by an angry Beast (Dan Stevens) who imprisons him. Belle finds her imprisoned father and trades
places with him. Over a few days, Beast and Belle fall in love, he releases her
so she can save Maurice from being taken to an asylum, and Gaston leads the
villagers in an attack on the castle to “kill the Beast.”
There are several positives in the new movie. Much of the acting in the film is top-notch.
Emma Watson, Kevin Kline, Emma Thompson, Ian McKellan, and Stanley Tucci all
deliver fine acting performances. Most of the characters are quite enjoyable to
watch, including new characters (such as Tucci’s Maestro Cadenza) that weren’t
in the original movie; these characters actually add to the story and aren’t a
distraction. I liked the new song “Days in the Sun” better than the “Human
Again” (from the Broadway musical that was later added to the original movie).
I also liked Beast’s song “Evermore.” There really is a lot to enjoy about this
new live-action movie. However, there is
much in the movie that prevents it from surpassing the quality of its
predecessor.
First of all, there’s the computer animation of Beast. For
most of the movie, it’s well done and blends seamlessly with everything else.
However, there are a few moments where it’s obvious that Beast has mostly been
computer generated. In a film of lesser quality or one that didn’t have a
budget of $160 million, these instances could be more easily overlooked.
However, with the details that went into the rest of the movie, these instances
of poor animation are severely jarring. They break the spell of enchantment
that everything else in the movie has tried so hard to create.
Then there is Lumiere. Lumiere is a crucial character in both
versions of Disney’s BEAUTY AND THE BEAST. He’s portrayed decently enough in
the new live-action version by Ewan McGregor, but the biggest problem I have
with Lumiere is that he’s the only one of the “cursed” household servants who
has human legs. Not only that, but sometimes he has them and other times he
doesn’t. When the audience first sees Lumiere he’s whispering to Cogsworth (Ian
McKellan) and appears as a regular candelabra with a normal base. Later, he
suddenly appears hopping and jumping about on two golden, but obviously human
legs. None of the other servants who are objects have legs that resemble human
legs so why does Lumiere? Later in the film there is another moment where we
see Lumiere standing and again, he has a base and looks like the Lumiere of the
original animated movie. However, when we see him again the base is gone and
he’s walking on two legs again. Towards the end of the movie the same thing
happens again. It just doesn’t fit. The movie would have worked much better had
it been more consistent: either allow all of the servants to move as freely as
Lumiere or keep him as a true candelabra like he is in the original movie. I understand
why the filmmakers did things this way (Lumiere moves around so much, it was easier).
However, when you have $160 million dollar budget, easier is not an excuse and
is a challenge that should have been met. There’s also Lumiere’s singing voice.
Ewan McGregor is a good singer (see MOULIN ROUGE). However, if you only
listened to him sing in this movie, you wouldn’t realize that. You would think
he’s an ok singer, but not very good. I’m not sure what the problem was, but
listening to Lumiere’s songs in this film make me think either something was
wrong with McGregor’s voice during the production or he was only delivering a
half-hearted singing performance.
Of course, McGregor’s voice sounds angelic to the singing of
Emma Watson. Watson is a beautiful woman and an excellent actor. Like many,
I’ve been a fan of hers since first seeing HARRY POTTER AND THE SORCERER’S
STONE. She captures the essence and spirit of Belle quite well. That is until
she starts singing. She is not a terrible singer. However, she’s not great
either, and Belle should really be a great singer. Although it’s not done very often anymore,
the filmmakers could have improved the movie by dubbing over Watson’s singing
performances with someone who can sing better.
Then, there is Gaston. Luke Evans is miscast as Gaston. He
somewhat looks the part in the face and he sings well enough, but he’s not tall
enough or buff enough. However, his character has been somewhat altered in this
version. In this incarnation, Gaston isn’t just a hunter, but he’s a decorated
soldier with a bloodlust that is never satiated. Make no mistake, Gaston has always been a
villain. However, in the original story, he was a brawny villain that was full
of charisma and he was driven by ambition, not bloodlust. In the new movie,
Gaston does things that are completely out of character for him. For instance, at one point he attempts to
murder another character. The Gaston of the original movie would never have
done that. Not only that, but in this version of the story, it seems like most
of the villagers follow and admire Gaston not out of adoration, but because
they are compelled to do so. It’s almost as though Gaston is part of magical
spell that has fallen over the village and the town folk are attracted to
Gaston even though it’s against their true nature. Regardless, the Gaston of
this BEAUTY AND THE BEAST is a poor imitation of the original and a failure to
truly bring one of the great Disney villains to life.
Overall, the 2017 live-action version of Disney’s BEAUTY AND
THE BEAST is a good movie with some memorable moments. It attempts to replicate
the magic of its animated predecessor, but doesn’t. It’s an enjoyable movie,
but just not a great film. The movie is enjoying tremendous success, but that’s
largely because of nostalgia and a year from now, people will re-watch the
movie and realize it’s not as good as they thought it was.
Disney has several other live-action adaptations of its
animated library coming to the big screen in the next few years (DUMBO, THE
LITTLE MERMAID, THE LION KING, etc.). With the success of this version, my fear
is that BEAUTY AND THE BEAST will be the standard that these other films
attempt to emulate. While BEAUTY AND THE BEAST is a good movie, it’s not as
good as it should have been and never reaches the pinnacle of greatness that it
should. If the future live-action Disney
films want to be great films, they should emulate the only truly great
live-action adaptation brought to the screen so far: 2016’s THE JUNGLE BOOK.
That movie successfully followed the plot and pacing of the original movie, but
made the characters seem fresh and original. That’s the movie BEAUTY AND THE
BEAST should have been, but isn’t.
